• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Trump Rape Surfaces

Here is her account of what happened regarding Trump:



Also in that piece are some accounts of the other 21 "Hideous Men of My Life" (not necessarily rapists, just "hideous men") , such as Number 13, one of her first bosses (in Chicago in the sixties). The two of them are in a local restaurant awaiting clients when the boss' ex-wife shows up with an "older chap":



She stays, because:

[W]ild, half-witted, greener-than-green Jeanie Carroll, 50 years before #MeToo, 40 years before women even begin expecting things could be different Jeanie Carroll, who takes her licks and doesn’t look back, is not about to pass up a dinner in the goddamn Pump Room!

I have the filet mignon. (One of the last times I ever eat meat, so disgusting is this night.)

My boss? He orders another drink and becomes more and more excited, slobbering on my hand like a Doberman playing with his squeaky toy, and meanwhile my boss’s ex-wife — who I now, half a century later, suspect was actually his wife and this was a little game they played to spice things up — starts rubbing her chap’s leg.

My boss and I can’t really see her doing it, as the table linen hangs nearly to the floor, but it is clear from the feverish action of her upper body that she is rubbing and rubbing and rubbing, and when her chap’s eyes close, she goes on rubbing until, with his face still smeared with lipstick and looking like a sophomore standing on the free-throw line in a tied game, the chap stands up, heaves a wad of cash on the table, grabs the wife, and they scamper toward the exit. My boss asks for the check.

My Jean Rhys Good Morning, Midnight room in the old Hotel Eastgate on Ontario Street no longer exists. But at the time, it is only a dozen or so blocks away, and my boss insists on driving me home. It is my first ride in a Mercedes. I am surprised at how uncomfortable the stiff leather seats are. Two or three blocks from my place, my boss runs a red light, stomps the brakes, skids to a halt, and, jabbering about “that cunt” or “a cunt” or “all cunts,” jams his hand between my legs so hard I bang my head into the dashboard trying to protect myself. I open the car door and bound into the traffic.

My boss must be doing the following things: pulling over, getting out, etc., because as I am about to turn in to the Hotel Eastgate, I look back and see him weaving toward me in a drunken trot. I remember that his legs look menacingly short. I run into the empty hotel lobby. Spurt past the desk. No manager in sight. Check the elevators. Decide to take the stairs two at a time. Hit the second floor. Feeling for the room key in my jacket pocket, I run down the hall, and as I try to put the key in the door, my boss catches me from behind and clamps his teeth on the nape of my neck. I kick backward at his shins, manage to get the key to work, jab a backward elbow into his ribs, squeeze into my room, and push, push, push the door closed.

Have you ever shut a dog outside who wants to come in? My boss scratches and whimpers at that door for the next quarter of an hour. The next day, I get a new job — and never has my lack of all talent been put to better advantage — as a greeter-and-seater at Gino’s East, the Chicago pizza joint beloved by mob guys, journos, and TV glamorosi, and do not so much as call No. 13 to tell him I quit.

I quote that episode as well to illustrate to the usual suspects that it's not in any way a "stretch of credulity" to believe that there could be twenty one such incidents of varying severity, like a wealthy boss, in the sixties, especially in New York, using a pretty young newly hired female employee as a pawn in a drunken, bitter, anger-fueled domestic psychosexual drama and then try to go after her as the anger at his wife's actions builds up.

I have lived in New York for thirties years now and have had many female friends tell me that they are molested or harassed on a daily basis, particularly on the subway. Being groped at rush hour--morning or evening--is pretty much a guarantee for most women. One very close friend of mine was all-out raped by her boss in their midtown office bathroom ffs and that was in 2005.

In regard to her story about Trump, notice how charming and innocent it all seems initially. It's perfectly plausible, particularly given everything we've heard about him prior to Carroll coming forward.

So, where is the part that stretches credulity? That a woman--journalist, no less--living and working in New York and around the world most of her long life would have had so many such instances? Again, I'm willing to bet even money that just about every single woman currently living in New York City--or any city, for that matter and at any age--has more than her share of such assaults, whether comparatively less severe in duration or outcome or not.

It’s pretty routine for women to have to endure some level of ‘sexual interest’ from bosses, co-workers, clients, strangers, etc. it’s less common for the men to be someone whose name is recognized by the general public.

As the whole #MeToo movement grew, an old friend and I began listing incidents and situations. She had it much worse because her work often required that she travel with male bosses. In fact, a good thing came out of it: she met her husband at a conference they both attended. He kept inserting himself between my friend and her older, married boss who kept trying to maneuver my friend into spaces where they’d be alone, trying to put his hands on her, even during the professional conference itself. It was a constant dance for her with that boss: trying to keep him from getting all handsy without pissing him off so much he fired her.
 
Both Law And Order SVU and The Apprentice are NBC programs. I wonder if they share writers.

Maybe Trump is the one who copycatted the SVU script, eh? He watches the show, tries it out...

He also has a time machine? Because Carroll claims the alleged rape happened in 1995 or 1996 (she is not sure when) and the episode came out in 2011 or so.

Oh, I misunderstood your copycat accusation. Sorry. Joke doesn't work, then.
 
You know what would be a thousand times more of a coincidence?
An innocent person being accused of sexual assault (or rape) by 17 different women.

Generally you would be right. However, in this case there are two special factors at work:

1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

2) He has a reputation for improper sexual conduct. That will increase the number of bogus reports. Also, reports--true or not--will tend to cause bogus reports. The events are not independent.

Thus, while 17 reports makes it likely there is a problem I would not consider it conclusive.
 
You know what would be a thousand times more of a coincidence?
An innocent person being accused of sexual assault (or rape) by 17 different women.

Generally you would be right. However, in this case there are two special factors at work:

1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

2) He has a reputation for improper sexual conduct. That will increase the number of bogus reports. Also, reports--true or not--will tend to cause bogus reports. The events are not independent.

Thus, while 17 reports makes it likely there is a problem I would not consider it conclusive.

So how many reports would it take to make it 'conclusive' to you? Alternatively: how many male witnesses?
 
You know what would be a thousand times more of a coincidence?
An innocent person being accused of sexual assault (or rape) by 17 different women.

Generally you would be right. However, in this case there are two special factors at work:

1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

2) He has a reputation for improper sexual conduct. That will increase the number of bogus reports. Also, reports--true or not--will tend to cause bogus reports. The events are not independent.

Thus, while 17 reports makes it likely there is a problem I would not consider it conclusive.

Good news for Bill Cosby, I suppose.
 
1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

2) He has a reputation for improper sexual conduct. That will increase the number of bogus reports. Also, reports--true or not--will tend to cause bogus reports. The events are not independent.Thus, while 17 reports makes it likely there is a problem I would not consider it conclusive.

3) He claims to grab women by the pussy without their consent. That HAS to cause even more reports, right? Seems that the only thing that doesn't contribute to the number of reports, is a history of actual rape.

How "likely" does it have to be that an individual is a sexual predator, to deny them a security clearance, or prohibit them from government service altogether?
You're saying that if someone is able to generate enough of a horrible reputation for rapes and sexual assaults by raping and assaulting women, they should be immune from prosecution because their reputation will always precede them. The more of a history of sexual abuse, the higher the bar for "conclusive", right?
 
How "likely" does it have to be that an individual is a sexual predator, to deny them a security clearance, or prohibit them from government service altogether?
Well, THAT will depend on the investigators and their findings, not headlines and talk shiw appearances. One-on-one interviews with claimants and efforts to corroborate, or at least weight yhe alibis.
Assuming, of course, that whoever is investigating the claims is not told to only question the accused's drinking buddies, frat brothers, and spaniel.
 
He also has a time machine? Because Carroll claims the alleged rape happened in 1995 or 1996 (she is not sure when) and the episode came out in 2011 or so.

Oh, I misunderstood your copycat accusation. Sorry. Joke doesn't work, then.

I wouldn't worry about an apology because Derec is also pointing at her referencing "sex" at Bergdorf's before the sexual assault. It's contradictory and confused.
 
You know what would be a thousand times more of a coincidence?
An innocent person being accused of sexual assault (or rape) by 17 different women.

Generally you would be right. However, in this case there are two special factors at work:

1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

2) He has a reputation for improper sexual conduct. That will increase the number of bogus reports. Also, reports--true or not--will tend to cause bogus reports. The events are not independent.

Thus, while 17 reports makes it likely there is a problem I would not consider it conclusive.

Can you support the highlighted claim with evidence and facts? Or is this just another rhetorical hail Mary trope?
 
1) He's a major public figure. Public figures tend to draw bogus rape reports.

Can you support the highlighted claim with evidence and facts? Or is this just another rhetorical hail Mary trope?

To start, can you please name all the public figures that you had in your mind when you said this, who have, say, more than 10 accusations of rape against them that have been shown to be bogus?


.
.
.

Or, tell you what. Name ONE.
 
This is something that I just thought of,

Imagine a woman who wants to have sex with a guy (even if for other than lustful reasons) and as the foreplay and intercourse goes on she realizes that the guy is a real creep who has zero compassion for her (i.e. the mask slips) as a person.

Following that the guy is really gross, cold and rude to her...

That has got to be weird and unsettling for the woman. Not sure how that would play out.

I could see that Trump could have had a lot a sexual encounters and afterwards where women see his mask slip and the real creep appears.
 
This is something that I just thought of,

Imagine a woman who wants to have sex with a guy (even if for other than lustful reasons) and as the foreplay and intercourse goes on she realizes that the guy is a real creep who has zero compassion for her (i.e. the mask slips) as a person.

Following that the guy is really gross, cold and rude to her...

That has got to be weird and unsettling for the woman. Not sure how that would play out.

I could see that Trump could have had a lot a sexual encounters and afterwards where women see his mask slip and the real creep appears.

This is probably behind a lot of women changing their minds from yes at first kiss to vehement “NO!” And why it is neither improbable nor unreasonable for a woman to change her mind to a NO! Men reveal themselves a lot when they are pursuing sex. And often it is not pretty - and even repulsive.
 
This is something that I just thought of,

Imagine a woman who wants to have sex with a guy (even if for other than lustful reasons) and as the foreplay and intercourse goes on she realizes that the guy is a real creep who has zero compassion for her (i.e. the mask slips) as a person.

Following that the guy is really gross, cold and rude to her...

That has got to be weird and unsettling for the woman. Not sure how that would play out.

I could see that Trump could have had a lot a sexual encounters and afterwards where women see his mask slip and the real creep appears.

This is probably behind a lot of women changing their minds from yes at first kiss to vehement “NO!” And why it is neither improbable nor unreasonable for a woman to change her mind to a NO! Men reveal themselves a lot when they are pursuing sex. And often it is not pretty - and even repulsive.

A friend in college had this happen. Was making out with a guy in her room, and decided that was as far as she was willing to go. He complained when she resisted. "But baby, you've got me all excited" or something along those lines. Her response? "Well, you can go find an empty room, or go into the bathroom, or just go home and jerk off if that'll make you feel better."

Trump is obviously one of those creeps who feels that if a woman gets him excited sexually, she has a responsibility to "finish" the job.
 
This is something that I just thought of,

Imagine a woman who wants to have sex with a guy (even if for other than lustful reasons) and as the foreplay and intercourse goes on she realizes that the guy is a real creep who has zero compassion for her (i.e. the mask slips) as a person.

Following that the guy is really gross, cold and rude to her...

That has got to be weird and unsettling for the woman. Not sure how that would play out.

I could see that Trump could have had a lot a sexual encounters and afterwards where women see his mask slip and the real creep appears.

This is probably behind a lot of women changing their minds from yes at first kiss to vehement “NO!” And why it is neither improbable nor unreasonable for a woman to change her mind to a NO! Men reveal themselves a lot when they are pursuing sex. And often it is not pretty - and even repulsive.

A friend in college had this happen. Was making out with a guy in her room, and decided that was as far as she was willing to go. He complained when she resisted. "But baby, you've got me all excited" or something along those lines. Her response? "Well, you can go find an empty room, or go into the bathroom, or just go home and jerk off if that'll make you feel better."

Trump is obviously one of those creeps who feels that if a woman gets him excited sexually, she has a responsibility to "finish" the job.

And sometimes, all she has to do is exist—and be within arm’s reach.
 
Here are some unsettling statistics:

0BE50794-FE8E-4175-91CA-17EE235CB464.jpeg

Over half of all Americans, evidently, have either been sexually assaulted, or know someone who has or “prefer not to say” (which basically means “yes”).

Regardless, with THAT high of a percentage it is an absolute guarantee that there are a significant percentage who have experienced numerous attacks in varying degrees of severity.

Note in particular how evenly spread it is among age groups.

Iow, in no way do 21 “hideous men” met over one woman’s entire seventy-five year lifespan stretch credulity.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about an apology because Derec is also pointing at her referencing "sex" at Bergdorf's before the sexual assault. It's contradictory and confused.

It's not contradictory, but two separate possibilities. It's really weird that this Bergdorf store keeps popping up.
 
I wouldn't worry about an apology because Derec is also pointing at her referencing "sex" at Bergdorf's before the sexual assault. It's contradictory and confused.

It's not contradictory, but two separate possibilities.

They are mutually exclusive, but you don't care as long as you can throw enough shit against the wall, at least one piece will stick.

Derec said:
It's really weird that this Bergdorf store keeps popping up.

It's not weird for her because she frequents the store. It's weird for YOU to keep bringing it up. No, wait, it's not weird, it's typical of you to try to tie together "theories" against potential victims who happen to be female.
 
Your misogynist "theories" are contradictory.

1. Doubting a rape claim is not "misogynist".
2. So what? They do not have to both be true. It's "or", not "and".

First, you claimed she copied off of a television show. Second, you claimed she was copying off her own idea of sex on the 4th floor of Bergdorf's, but this second event occurs before the first. These are mutually exclusive copy claims by you, but then you talk about all the "coincidences," as if they are additive. They aren't.

Actually, probabilities are additive in this case! Probability of A or B happening is
P(A∪B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A∩B)
Since, as you pointed out, A and B are mutually exclusive P(A∩B)=0 and thus the expression simplifies to
P(A∪B)=P(A)+P(B)
I.e. addition of probabilities.
q.e.d.

I have to add that you are adding your own spin to interpretation. Her reference to Bergdorf's was easily a reference to some women having a figurative orgasm from shopping at Bergdorf's. The reason it keeps coming up is because she enjoyed shopping there and observed other women liked it, too. If you examine her writing it will come up more than once.
Possibly. But it reads as sexual to me. If it's just a coincidence, it's a weird one. Just like the one with the SUV episode.
Of course, I have no proof, but the burden of proof is on her, not on those doubting her story.

What's worse is your hatred of female freedom
I don't hate female freedom, but I am frustrated that it often leads to women competing over guys like this.
megan-michael-love-after-lockup.jpg


has painted you into a corner where an actual sexual assaulter like Trump has confessed to forcing his hands on women's vaginas, but any woman who comes forward to talk about it is "suspicious." You can't fight your way out of the misogynist corner to find any honest women at all, but a rational person will expect there to be tens of women based on Trump's words by himself. Your biases cause irrational conclusions.
My point is that serious allegations like those of rape should require evidence in order to be taken seriously. Anybody can accuse somebody of rape 23 years later. How can somebody defend themselves against that?
It's not just Trump that's the issue here. It's the larger societal problem of "we have to believe women no matter what" even when they allege ancient crimes with no evidence.
 
It's not weird for her because she frequents the store.
That does not explain the SVU episode away.

And again, there is zero evidence for her accusations. If it really happened, and she reported it right away, there would be tapes from cameras inside Bergdorf, employees could be questioned by police, her clothes and body could be forensically investigated. 23 years later, none of this evidence exists. Very convenient if it never happened.
 
1. Doubting a rape claim is not "misogynist".
2. So what? They do not have to both be true. It's "or", not "and".



Actually, probabilities are additive in this case! Probability of A or B happening is
P(A∪B)=P(A)+P(B)-P(A∩B)
Since, as you pointed out, A and B are mutually exclusive P(A∩B)=0 and thus the expression simplifies to
P(A∪B)=P(A)+P(B)
I.e. addition of probabilities.
q.e.d.

No, I did not say probabilities are not additive, what I said was that you are treating them as if the coincidences are additive to find ONE narrative. You have MULTIPLE narratives.

P(A) AND P(B) = 0, because they are mutually exclusive, i.e. you contradicted yourself.

You can try to claim that now you are saying, well, at least one narrative is likely to be true which is how you are changing your goalposts, but you did not notice the bizarre "theories" you were posting contradicted each other.

Q.E.D.

Derec said:
I have to add that you are adding your own spin to interpretation. Her reference to Bergdorf's was easily a reference to some women having a figurative orgasm from shopping at Bergdorf's. The reason it keeps coming up is because she enjoyed shopping there and observed other women liked it, too. If you examine her writing it will come up more than once.
Possibly. But it reads as sexual to me. If it's just a coincidence, it's a weird one. Just like the one with the SUV episode.
Of course, I have no proof, but the burden of proof is on her, not on those doubting her story.

What's worse is your hatred of female freedom
I don't hate female freedom, but I am frustrated that it often leads to women competing over guys like this.
megan-michael-love-after-lockup.jpg


has painted you into a corner where an actual sexual assaulter like Trump has confessed to forcing his hands on women's vaginas, but any woman who comes forward to talk about it is "suspicious." You can't fight your way out of the misogynist corner to find any honest women at all, but a rational person will expect there to be tens of women based on Trump's words by himself. Your biases cause irrational conclusions.
My point is that serious allegations like those of rape should require evidence in order to be taken seriously. Anybody can accuse somebody of rape 23 years later. How can somebody defend themselves against that?
It's not just Trump that's the issue here. It's the larger societal problem of "we have to believe women no matter what" even when they allege ancient crimes with no evidence.

Haha, pictures of random black people. So predictable.

Derec said:
...there is zero evidence for her accusations...

Allegedly, she told two friends about it after it happened, which outside a court of law provides at least some probability that your claims about Bergdorf's are much less likely. So, it's not ZERO EVIDENCE. You just don't like it.

Likewise, you don't like the fact that President Twitler McCrazyPants admitted to grabbing women by the vagina. Since he admitted it, it's likely to have happened to several, maybe tens of women. So, when tens of women come out, it adds to the likelihood they each could be telling the truth. So, this is also EVIDENCE.

You can't deal with evidence you don't like though because you just want to fling shit against the wall.

Nice try.
 
Back
Top Bottom